I would say that the 10th Amendment prevents SCOTUS from being able to overturn the decision since this was done in a state court and not a federal one. Citizens of NM should petition to put this on the ballot and either have the law repealed or something the protects you from being forced to participate in something that violates your religious beliefs.
The only reason why I would “bother” with them is that they seem to be able to use the media to force their acceptance on everyone else. We need to defend our freedoms without prejudice.
=======================
The only reason why I would “bother” with them is that they seem to be able to use the media to force their acceptance on everyone else. We need to defend our freedoms without prejudice.
One can turn off the media. Their strength lies in not getting turned off and getting WAY too much attention by people like us FReepers.
I don't think the media are going to change. Nothing we say or do here will change them. They say and do what they want, hiding behind the Constitution. The very WORST thing that can be done to them is to ignore them.
Just an opinion.
“I would say that the 10th Amendment prevents SCOTUS from being able to overturn the decision since this was done in a state court and not a federal one.”
Respectfully....that is nonsense. Since when does the 10th Ammendment become the grounds to ignore the 1st? It doesn’t....and the Supreme Court would not be using that logic. So, that leaves us with a Court that is saying that if you are in “business”, then you don’t have 1st Ammendment Rights. That is scary in the extreme...and it makes me realize the SCOTUS is going to rule against Hobby Lobby.
Now that being said....I do agree with you that the people of the State need to deal with the problem. It is a “bad” law and needs the people to overturn it by changing their state constitution. However, if they did, would the SCOTUS then rule the new state constitution as “unconstituional?” What is it going to take to stop the judicial tyranny we are witnessing?
Tolerance wasn’t good enough and I’m betting that acceptance won’t be good enough either, because what they seem to want is mandatory approval and participation. Reminds me of islam, submit to islamic domination or die.
There are some elements which may cause it to be a federal case; the 5th and 14th Amendments come to mind as possibly being violated, but certainly the 13th Amendment.
The state's supreme court was wrong — not just because their decision is morally reprehensible, but because it is contrary to the State's own Constitution:
Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
The bold portion is relevant because it is common for sexual acts to be a form of religious worship (See Hindu, or even Christian [portion of the Anglican wedding vows: With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
]).
For the same reason is it a violation of the italicized portion.
Even disregarding the first two issues, the underlined is inescapable: to force one to sell [their services] is to deny them the civil right of determining with whom they wish to do business.
Therefore, the New Mexico supreme court is in rebellion to the very document which gives it authority.
The 14th Amendment reads as follows:
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Now, the photographer is being forced to provide services involuntarily: that is the essence of involuntary servitude,